On DRC, Reuters to BBC Spun Only Burundi - Rwanda, Inner City Press Published Full Report

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive publication

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- A mere two paragraphs out of a more than 20-paragraph UN Group of Experts report were trumpeted by Reuters on the evening of February 3: Rwanda is training Burundian opposition fighters, in DRC, citing 18 such combatants.

  Amazingly, BBC Radio then put on air the scribe who was handed the report, Michelle Nichols -- without the BBC apparently even looking for the full report itself. Audio here. Is this what mainstream or British journalisms has come it? BBC presenter Akwasi Sarpong said, "You've seen the report" -- as if he couldn't see it himself, here, merely with Google. Is this incompetence or more propaganda?

   There was, of course, much more to this 12-page UN report, including simply as one example that the UN Peacekeepers from Tanzania was described as meeting / working with the ADF rebels, mis-speaking and getting in a firefight with the Congolese Army. But this lead section of the report was not in Reuters February 3 lead story by its UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau.

  Later Charbonneau would promote his propaganda protege Michelle Nichols' apparently, only about Rwanda, on BBC Radio - the torch as been passed? Note that it is Reuters, and Nichols, who in a murky process has been handpicked to "memorialize" the Security Council's interactions with the Great Lakes, along with a Voice of America scribe Margaret Basheer who "saw" Liberians while in Burundi last month. 

 Inner City Press, having seen this before, put the entire 12 page UN DRC Group of Experts report online on the morning of February 4, here, and asked about it at the February 4 UN noon briefing, transcript here(some then left the briefing room, on which we'll have more.)  Video here.

Inner City Press asked about it again on February 5, including the Tanzania links, here.

   Only on the afternoon of February 4 did Reuters note the other sections of the report, including the Tanzanians - and then, not by the bureau chief but the correspondent.

For the record, the Reuters bureau chief first tried to get Inner City Press out of the UN -- then asked to have his anti-Press filing with the UNremoved from Google's search as purportedly copyrighted, an abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and a move at odds with Reuters claimed embrace of freedom of information. His filing, put online by the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Chilling Effects project, is here; his underlying email to the UN's (now spokesman) Stephane Dujarric  is here.

Other at Reuters got involved, a Freedom of Information Act request by Inner City Press revealed: but the company's executives refused to explain their policies as requested.

  Then the Reuters correspondent tried, with a stealth filing with the UN. Less stealth, in the briefing room and on video here, on February 3 this Reuters correspondent tried to cut off Inner City Press questions to the UN deputy spokesperson about corruption involving indicted Ng Lap Seng and the UN Correspondents Association, on whose board Reuters has a seemingly permanent seat, and tried to use to oust the Press. We'll have more on this.

After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on New Year's Eve issued a statement surreally praising the Burundi “talks” held in Entebbe, Uganda, multiple sources told Inner City Press these not really talks but rather a photo op. The January 6 session announced for Arusha did not happen.  Inner City Press requested to cover the UNSC's trip to Burundi, but was UNtransparently rejected.

Transparently, Inner City Press  published the DR Congo Group of Experts Update Report including about 18 Burundian combatants, hereand see below.

At the February 4 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, transcript here:

Inner City Press: I've seen the Group of Experts' report and actually published it, and I wanted to ask you the following: you said there's a Group of Experts, the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo) sanctions Group of Experts.  And there's two paragraphs in the report... if you can say from this podium, what is the mandate of that Group of Experts?  And I ask because, previously, they were asked to look into the  Burundian Government's youth militia training in South Kivu, and the answer was that this was beyond their mandate, that they are the DRC sanctions committee.  So I wanted to know, was there some change in their mandate, and, perhaps relatedly, what is the process to replace… you've announced that Movses Abelian is getting a promotion, all to the good, what is the process for replacing the head of SCAD, the Security Council Affairs Division, and does it involve consultation with the P5 members?  Thank you.

Deputy Spokesman:  First of all, regarding your first question about the mandate of the Group of Experts, that mandate is set by the relevant Security Council resolutions.  I'd simply refer you back to those.  Regarding Mr. Abelian, yes, we announced that he will be in charge of the Division of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Management and, while we… while we look for a replacement through the usual procedures, there will be an acting head of the office.  Regarding how selections are made, of course, it's the standard process by which we hire personnel.

Inner City Press:  Is Kelvin Ong either a candidate to replace him or who's in charge now of SCAD?

Deputy Spokesman:  I would never, never…

Inner City Press:  Who's in charge of SCAD?

Deputy Spokesman:  For all personnel appointments, we don't go into lists of candidates.  I would check who's the acting head right now.  I don't believe that Mr. Abelian has started his next job already, so it may be him right now.  But there will be an acting head. 

  Handpicked to go and memorialize the trip was Reuters, which barely reported what happened. There is a history, of Reuters UN bureau hereand here; on February 3, Reuters correspondent Michelle Nichols went so far as to cut off Inner City Press' questions to the UN, Vine here.

  On February 3 Reuters' UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau, a censor,  channeled a UN (DRC) report -- note not only the former Reuters official turned Eritrea sanctions “experts” exposed by Inner City Presshere, but also that this same now discredited Reuters / UN individual was previously ON the DR Congo panel. Typically, Reuters did not actually put the report online.

  Inner City Press in the spirit of transparency is publishing the (update) report, dated January 15, 2016, signed by Coordinator Gaston Gramajo, and its two paragraphs about 18 Burundian combatants, here. 

DR Congo "Group of Experts" Progress Report Including on Burundi by Matthew Russell Lee

Readers can draw their own conclusions, including about the mandate and motivation, and if these 18 is really the way it would go.

 At the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ban Ki-moon barely if at all pushed for peacekeepers for Burundi; his or France's head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous had largely undercut the idea with a memo than Inner City Press published in full.

(Inner City Press has reported the UN Peacebuilding Configuration will visit February 15-19, click here for that.)

On January 29, the UN Spokesman threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room then on February 1 made this threat, here. This wasechoed on February 2. 
 On January 28, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about a meeting held but not televised on January 27, at which it was urged that mass grave sites in Burundi be preserved as evidence,video here, transcript here.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokespeople about the trip on January 20, 21 and 22 - including asking why the UN was not providing a video or at least audio stream of the January 22 press encounters, says it has a  "UN Information Center" in Bujumbura, which produced a smiling photo of the French deputy ambassador Alexis Lamek on the tarmac. The UN said it couldn't.

  Local media in Burundi put online a video in which Lamek spoke at length; afterward a pro-government Burundian media quoted Lamek that "we" take seriously the question of interference by Rwanda to destabilize Burundi and will be working on it.

  But the four scribes handpicked to accompany the Security Council trip, inlcuding Agence France Presse, it seems, for some reasons didn't cover it. Why? We'll have more on this. Instead, AFP, Reuters andVoice of America (which saw "Liberians" then cited auto-correct) filed near-identical stories with no quotes from opposition figures or attacked journalists. None of the three even tweeted on January 23, other than Reuters as a robot: talk about Old Media.

  How could "Agence France Presse," handpicked to publicize the UNSC trip co-led by France, not even cover the controversy? What about Reuters?

  We note that the French Mission to the UN said that Lamek was being misrepresented (the same French Mission has tried to shield Lamek from critical Press questions, which here on Vine Lamek has refused to answer even when entirely audible). Later an AFP quote emerged of Lamek saying that any AU force, even the 100 human rights observers, should significantly focus on the Rwandan border.

  On the evening of January 23 the UN has put up select clips including a mere 16 seconds of French deputy ambassador Lamek, much less than the local Burundian media present at the same press encountered had.  If the UN filmed the press encounters, why did it so selectively edit them?

  More specifically, now, who decided on the edits?

  Inner City Press asked the head of the Campaign Against the Third Term (“Halte au troisième mandat”) Vital Nshimirimana about the UNSC visit, and why the AU human rights observers are not yet in place. His answers to Inner City Press:

"As for the deployment of the AU Human rights observers, I would recall that the same was decided back in June following the June 13, 2015 Johannesburg Summit on Burundi. Initially, the number was to be about 70 observers but the government refused and allowed a narrow team.

"My thought over the issue is that Nkurunziza has chosen to humiliate everybody in as much as he does not care about any principle or value. So, the AU and other bodies as well choose to deal with him very carefully for he is a man (and a regime) "irrational," likely to commit whatever crime, insult whomever.....

"With regard to the UNSC visit, I hope this is the very last warning towards a kind of regime likely to commit genocide. They are expected to dually and objectively assess the situation and especially the strength and presence of Imbonerakure, the CNDD-FDD militia.... And this was shown through a huge anti- peacekeeping mission mission to Burundi, MAPROBU rhetoric.
Burundians expect the UNSC support the deployment of such a mission in line with the responsibility to protect (Pillar III) since Burundi is no longer able and is unwilling to protect citizens from crimes against humanity (ongoing from April 2015) and genocide (of which dozens of signs suggest that it is likely to happen and some acts are already undertaken).

Lastly, the UNSC is expected to talk with Nkurunziza and the AU as well regarding peace talks. They should assess Museveni's performance, after what conclude that he should be assigned AU and UN teams (to enhance his capacity) or change him.... I commend your endeavors to keep the world informed about the Burundi crisis."

 We'll have more on this -- including in light the UN Deputy Spokesperson's response to Inner City Press that transcripts may be provided.

  Here are parts of an Inner City Press interview with a journalist attacked by the Nkurunziza government and for that reason anonymous:

In English: "It would be better if the Security Council met for example UPRONA leader Nditije Charles, with the non-governmental branch of the UPRONA party) or his Spokesman Thacien Sibomana. The Council should try to meet civil society but  there is almost no one left to really speak with now in Bujumbura. All those still in Bujumbura, they can't say anything about the abuses of authorithies. If it was possible, they should ask to meet the young men in prison. They should see themselves how the government abuses those young men, with tortures... Tell them visit to the prisoners in Gitega (those who are accused to attempting a coup d'etat) UN has the right to visit prisoners."

  Inner City Press note: another source says "the government moved several detainees from the SNR jails. I highly doubt they'd allow a visit to detainees."

 Tellingly, IWACU reports that bike taxi and motorcycle taxi drivers offered money to protest in favor of Nkurunziza weren't, after the fact, paid: here.
    At the January 21 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the "community works" and meeting(s). Video here, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you this just because I'm trying to cover it, and I know that you'd said yesterday that the Special Adviser, Jamal Benomar, is in Burundi in part of the trip.  So what I wanted to ask you is, I've seen documents that show that the… the… the… tomorrow, the meeting with the President, [Pierre] Nkurunziza, will involve a demonstration of “community work”, i.e., people have been asked to go and I don't know if it's to show how happy they are — Gitega and Karuzi.  Does the Special Adviser… not the Security Council, does the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General believe that this type of… of… of show is the right one and will they be meeting with UPRONA and other opposition groups or prisoners currently in jail?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, we'll be able to provide details of the meetings once they've taken place.  As you know, the expectation is for the members of the Council to meet with President Nkurunziza.  That hasn't happened so far, but once that's happened, we'll see what the circumstances are and what the views of Mr. Benomar are.



 This is reminiscent of the type of dog-and-pony show Sri Lanka's then President Mahinda Rajapaksa put on for visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and that Inner City Press accompanied and covered(apparently not to the UN's and its allies' liking - it has been Banned from trips since.) But will the UNSC, unlike Ban, have the fortitude or leverage to reject a dog and pony show? Watch this site.

On January 19 at the UN, Inner City Press asked Uruguay's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Jose Luis Cancela, chairing the Security Council debate on Protection of Civilians, about Burundi and the Council's trip. Video here.

  On January 21, Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accessasked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about his stop-over on Addis Ababa, "will you as UK meet with AU before heading to Burundi? About AU's proposed deployment?"

   Rycroft replied, "Yes! Looking forward to meeting @AU_Chergui today. Will also return to Addis with whole UNSC after Burundi."

  In Addis, Chergui had filed the Concept of Operation for the MAPROBU peacekeeping mission. We'll have more on this.

  Burundian civil society has written to Ban seeking the repatriation of the country's peacekeepers. Inner City Press has put the letter from Vital Nshimirimana to Ban online here, and will be asking the UN about it. Watch this site.

  On December 30 Nkurunziza threatened to have his forces attack peacekeepers proposed for the country.


Obtained by Inner City Press

Ladsous' lack of vetting was criticized in the recently released report into the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic. Earlier, Inner City Press exclusive reported on Ladsous in his October 1, 2015 meeting with Burundi's vice president saying that he is "pragmatic" on human rights.

 On December 16 Inner City Press was banned from questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, but learned from the mission MINUSCA that Baratuza was already in Entebbe. Inner City Press asked several Security Council members, then Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December17.

Dujarric told Inner City Press Baratuza's deployment is suspended and he is being repatriated: "based on the information we've received regarding the Lieutenant Colonel, his deployment has been suspended, and he will be repatriated back to Burundi." Video here. Dujarric told Inner City Press this shows the UN system working - on a day when a report on rapes was issued showing UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous not sufficiently vetting for human rights. We'll have more on this.



 Amid the escalating killings in Burundi, last weekend's summary executions in neighborhoods opposed to Pierre Nkurunziza's third term stand out. But Burundi Army spokesman Gaspard Baratuza was quoted on December 12 blaming all of the deaths on attempts to steal weapons to free prisoners.

   Inner City Press had heard that Mr. Baratuza was already in the process of being deployed to the UN Peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) even when he was giving these quotes, issuing statements and speaking to state-owned radio, and so asked MINUSCA's acting spokesperson, “Is Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA job?”

  On December 16, hours before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a rare press conference, MINUSCA's acting spokesperson sent this to Inner City Press:

"To: Matthew.Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
From: Vladimir MONTEIRO [at] UN.org
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2015
Subject: ICP question: Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA-related post?
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

"No decision related to Lt Col Baratuza's deployment can be taken before we finish looking into the matter. We can confirm that Lt Col Baratuza is in Entebbe but he has not yet deployed to MINUSCA.  Regards. VNM"

There are some questions about Baratuza, a Colonel in Burundi's Army, being listed by the UN as “Lt. Col.”

  Despite multiple follow-up questions by Inner City Press, Mr. Monteiro - previously a spokesperson for the UN electoral mission in Burundi - replied that “This is what we can say about this issue.”

   But the UN should have to say more. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN how its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous vets those who deploy to UN missions; Inner City Pressexclusively reported on an October 1, 2015 meeting in which Ladsous told Burundi's Vice President Joseph Butare that he is “pragmatic” on human rights.



 Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman declined to take Inner City Press' questions on December 16, as they did on December 14. Vine here.  Watch this site.

Inside UN, South Korean Channel Arirang Is Added to P3 TV and Ban Ki-moon Plugs It, No India or Russia, China or Brazil

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- A year after the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN why its in-house EZTV had channels from the US (CNN and Fox News), UK (BBC) and France (France 24) but none from China or Russia or India or Brazil, a new channel has been added: South Korea's Arirang.

  Ban Ki-moon, former foreign minister and perhaps future president of South Korea, apparently made a plug for the station. So it's P3+2? 

 Inner City Press, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, asked about UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric back on April 29, 2014:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on the actual UN EZTV which has channels and it’s an in-house thing, it seems like now, there’s two French channels, there’s two American news channels, there’s Al-Jazeera, there’s no Russian or Chinese channel, so…

Spokesman Dujarric: We’re trying. Part of the issue is what we can get for free, we had to cut costs in terms of subscription so it was a cost issue, but I know it’s an effort on the part of [the Department of Public Information] to add more channels in different languages, but it’s also trying to do it in a way that doesn’t cost us a dime.

Inner City Press: It’s seems like P3 TV, do you see why?

Spokesman: Okay, that’s a comment, not a question.

Two days later there was an addition on UN in-house EZTV, but it is not Chinese or Russian: it's Japan's NHK. So G4 TV?

    

   

Of UN Language Wars and P3 TV in Committee on Information; Press Attacked Without Defense, FUNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 28 -- There are culture fights at the UN, and there are also language wars. Or at least skirmishes, as took place on April 28 in the Committee on Information. Delegates from Argentina to Cuba and China asked why the UN Webcast archives are not in Spanish or Chinese, Russian or Arabic. At least the question was answered, but the logic is not entirely clear.

  Even from the UN's in-house EZTV, which offers CNN and Fox News, BBC and Al Jazaeera, TV 5 Monde and France 24, the Chinese and Russian channels have been removed, Inner City Press hereby reports and the Free UN Coalition for Access dubs "P3 TV" for the three Western permanent members of the UN Security Council.

  There are two French channels, and none in Chinese or Russian. Meanwhile as Argentina's delegate pointed out on April 28 in the Committee on Information, it is Spanish and not French that is the second most popular language for those visiting the UN's website. Que pasa?

  More insidiously, France's outgoing Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud on April 15 told a UN accredited correspondent (not this one) who asked a critical question, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." 

  Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access has asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to the French mission the UN's stated position, that correspondents should be treated with respect. So far it has not happened.

  The attacked correspondent has for days asked the UN Correspondents Association's Executive Committee to take some action -- as, we note, it did with respect to another media, and another Ambassador. But the attacked journalist tells Inner City Press that UNCA is "dragging its feet." Others are not surprised.

  Amid all this, the UN will be celebrating World Press Freedom Day with none other than the president of UNCA, which is dragging its feet on defense of journalists inside the UN (after having attacked at least one, then engaged in censorship), and while UNCA does NOTHING on more serious attacks on press freedom in Ethiopia and Burundi. World Press Freedom Day, indeed. We'll be there: watch this site.

Footnote: In fairness, initiatives like DPI's Brown Bag Lunch series with for example UN Security and the UN envoy to Libya were good. But Under Secretaries General like Herve Ladsous still openly refuses particular media's questions, and other USGs rarely if even take questions. Improvements, including a UN Freedom of Information Act and improved UN Media Alert, are needed. Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, Ban KiMoon Races to Russia for Relevance, Selectively Confirmed, Kosovo Compared

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon races to Russia for relevance, with the news handed out selectively by UN Moscow three hours before Ban's new spokesperson, after a request, confirmed it. 

   It's worth remembering Moscow's anger at who called Ban's tune on Kosovo. What will be different now? After Russia, Ban will head to Kyiv to meet Yatsenyuk and the UN human rights monitors. 

  It was at 6:20 am in New York when BBC said that "UN Moscow office confirm that Ban Ki Moon coming to Moscow tomorrow. Will meet Putin and Lavrov."

  But no announcement by Ban's Office of the Spokesperson, which has repeatedly refused to confirm Ban trips even when the country visited has already disclosed it.

  And so the Free UN Coalition for Access wrote to Ban's new spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: 

"Will you confirm what BBC says UN Moscow told it, that the Secretary General is traveling to Russia tomorrow to meet President Putin and FM Lavrov -- and is so, can you explain why and how this UN news was distributed in that way first, and not through your office, to all correspondents at once? The latter part of the question is on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access as well."

   Forty five minutes later, after a mass e-mail, Dujarric replied:

"Matthew, The official announcement was just made. The UN office in moscow did not announce anything before we did. I did see some leaked reports this morning from various sources but nothing is official until it's announced by this office."

  But it wasn't a "leaked report" -- BBC said that UN Moscow hadCONFIRMED it. We'll have more on this. For now it's worth reviewing Ban Ki-moon's response to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008...

   The day after the Crimea referendum, the US White House announced new sanctions and Russia said Ukraine should adopt a federal constitution.

   Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric for Ban's or the UN's comment on either, if Ban thinks sanctions should ideally be imposed through the UN and not unilaterally, and if this might lead to a tit for tat.

  Dujarric said Ban's focus is on encouraging the parties to "not add tensions;" on Russia's federal constitution proposal he said the UN is "not going to get into judging every step."  Video here.

  With Serry gone from Crimea and Simonovic called unbalanced by Russia, what is the UN's role? Is it UNrelevant? 

  On the US sanctions earlier on March 17, self-described Senior Administration Official (SAO) 1 described sanctions on individuals in the Russian arms sector. One had and has to wonder: how does this relate to the sale of Mistral warships to Russia by US ally France? Inner City Pressasked at the State Department on March 14, click here for that.

  SAO 2 said the US can now impose sanctions on "Russian government cronies." Also on the list: Viktor Yanukovych. Another SAO offered "fun facts" about the referendum, including pre-marked ballots. It was repeatedly noted that the EU list of sanctions individuals, not to be publicly released until March 18, overlaps somewhat but is different from the US list.

  Notably, a Senior Administration Official said that "we" - presumably meaning the US, are moving forward with IMF negotiations. But what is the US' direct role in what the IMF says is an entire independent process?

  SAO 1 acknowledged this will impact the US' bilateral relations with Russia, noting the G8, but saying that Russia is "invested" in the Iran P5+1 process, and in the removal of Syria's chemical weapons. What about Afghanistan, the subject of the UN Security Council's meeting on March 17?

Going into the meeting, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said that the plan is to have a General Assembly briefing on Ukraine on March 20.

 Even as the Crimea referendum vote was taking place, US Senators returned from a whirlwind trip to Kyiv to appear on the US Sunday morning television shows.

   Senator Bob Corker R-TN said that the Obama administration created a "permissive" atmosphere that led to this; he slammed Secretary of State John Kerry's "wishy-washiness" and gifts with Sergey Lavrov.

    But in the Senate committee mark-up last week, Corker was all bipartisan sweetness and light. What changed?

  Also on Fox News Sunday, Senator Bob Menendez D-NJ insisted that for the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine, the long-stalled reforms must be passed by Congress.

  But when Inner City Press put this question directly to IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice on March 13, Rice declined to confirm the connection. See video here, at from Minute 12:05.

   Over on CBS' Face the Nation, former US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon bragged how sanctions on Iran showed what could be done to pressure Russia.

  But on NBC's Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Flake R-AZ said it's going to be difficult to "reverse" Crimea with economic sanctions. 

   Here's something that should and will be pursued this week: France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, even as its UN AmbassadorGerard Araud rails about Russia losing a rook and chess game in Ukraine. Who's playing games?

   On Ukraine, on March 15 after the UN Security Council vote on a US-drafted resolution calling the Crimea refendum invalid failed with Russia vetoing and China abstaining, Urkaine's Yuriy Sergeyov told the press there are Russian troops on the mainland.

    He said there will be more action next week, mentioning a debate on "revitalization," presumably of the UN General Assembly, aimed at the UN Security Council veto system.

  Little mentioned in Saturday's proceedings is that the US vetos resolutions on Israel, in settlements for example, and votes against non-binding resolution in the General Assembly about the embargo on Cuba, for example. 

   Sergeyev is deft, but he refused to answer a question about how the expansion of NATO impacts on this. "Don't provoke me," he said.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access objects to speakers at the UN picking which questions to answer. There are worse cases: France's Gerard Araud for example refused to answer on his country's sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping went so far as to direct his spokesman to grab the UN microphone so a question couldn't be asked. Video here and here.

   The US to its credit in terms of a single standard has questioned, at least implicitly, the French Mistral sale to Russia. Inner City Press on March 14 asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about the sale:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, one question that’s come up is, in terms of sanctions is France has this big deal where it’s selling Mistral warships to Russia, and it’s said that it’s going forward. What does the United States think of that sale of military hardware?

MS. HARF: Well, decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state to take into account including a host of factors – obviously, international law, regional stability. We would hope that any country would exercise judgment and restraint when it comes to transferring military equipment that could exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. In general, I think that certainly applies here. Video here, from Minute 20:13.

  Operative Paragraph 5 of the vetoed resolution, which even the UK Mission to the UN put online before the UN itself did, provided

"OP5 Declares that this referendum can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status"

  So, the Crimea resolution scheduled for March 16 would have no validity. But, as Russian foreign minister Lavrov asked in London on March 14, couldn't the same be said of the French-organized referendum splitting Mayotte from the Cosmoros?

   Inner City Press asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about both the resolution and the Mayotte analogy on March 14. From the US transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, there’s talk of the Security Council resolution – seems pretty clear that Russia would veto it, but there’s some discussion of trying – is it the U.S.’s intention to try to get a vote on a resolution declaring the referendum illegal before Sunday?

And also, Lavrov mentioned, and also Churkin as well, this example of Mayotte. They used – I mean, they’ve come up with different examples – Kosovo and others – but one in particular. Both of them raised an island of Comoros where France organized an referendum to break Comoros off – to break Mayotte off from Comoros, and said that this wasn’t authorized by the UN or the African Union. So I just wondered – I mean, maybe you’ll slap it down, but what’s the response to their argument?

MS. HARF: Well, in general, I think that it’s very clear under Ukraine’s constitution that governs Ukraine how this kind of referendum legally could take place. And that would involve a country-wide referendum, basically relying on the premise that any decisions about Ukraine’s territory need to be made by all of the people of Ukraine. So setting aside any comparisons, there are very clear rules in Ukraine’s constitution, which is in effect, that lay out how this kind of referendum could take place. That’s not what we see here. So any comparisons aside, they just don’t have relevancy here.

On the first question, I don’t have anything on a potential Security Council resolution. We’ve been very clear that there will be costs. I don’t have anything to outline for you in terms of what that might look like, but we as the United States, independently, have a number of tools at our disposal that we can use if and when we need to make clear those costs with this referendum going forward. Video here from Minute 18:34.

  Back on March 13 when Churkin took the Council floor he had a flourish of analogies: the US Declaration of Independence, the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Puerto Rico, and the recognition by some of Kosovo without even a referendum, he said, only an act of the legislature.

   Churkin said that France organized a referendum to break Mayotte away from the Comoros, in violation of UN resolution and using their veto, he said. Click here for some background.

  Would French Amabassador Gerard Araud respond? 

  Of late at the UN, his spokesperson Frederic Jung has called only on friendly journalists; Araud refused for example to answer why France is still selling Mistral warships to Russia, and claimed that Navi Pillay has not reported that France put Muslims at risk in the Central African Republic. The jokes, some say, are getting stale.

   Speaking after former US, now UN official Jeffrey Feltman, Yatsenyuk said if Russia persists, no country will ever again give up nuclear weapons, as Ukraine did. 

 Yatsenyuk shifted into Russian to speak directly to Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, just as Ambassador Sergeyev has done.  But Russia wasn't listed to speak and reply until the 14th of 17 slots. After Luxembourg as Council President for March, the next three speakers were the US, UK and France.

  US Ambassador Samantha Power cited the draft UNSC resolution, but didn't opine if China might abstain rather than join Russia in a veto.

  When French Ambassador Gerard Araud spoke, the question in the air which he refused to answer is why France is going forward with the sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Rather than answer it, Araud made stale jokes about Kosovo. 

   While in Washington, Yatsenyuk said he knows the International Monetary Fund program is "not the sweet candy." Inner City Press covers the IMF and can only say: ask Greece.

  Here is video of the IMF's March 13 briefing, see Minutes 12:05 and 31:12.

  Asked about allowing any referendum in Crimea, Yatsenyuk said the legislature in Kyiv would have to permit it; he said there could be dialogue about increased autonomy from Crimea, on taxes and language rights.

  He was asked about Jihadis going to Crimea and he answered about the Tatars. He bragged that a deputy prime minister in the new government "represents the Jewish community."  But what about Right Sector?

  The US State Department announced for example that the Department of Defense will be giving Meals Ready to Eat or MREs to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

   Over on Capitol Hill, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked-up the "Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014."

  Absent on jury duty, Senator Marco Rubio had a proposed amendment about the G8 and not invading your neighbor read out; it was agreed to.

  Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment to remove loan guarantees and the International Monetary Fund from the bill. He said the loans would go to back Russia back and noted that the proposed IMF reforms would raise Russia's power in the IMF from 2.5% to 2.71%

  Senator Bob Menendez replied that the IMF wouldn't give a dime unlesss Ukraine commits to changes. Can you say, austerity? Paul's amendment failed.

  Senator John McCain proposed giving the President the power to sanction "corrupt officials" in Russia. This amendment passed.

  Senator John Barrosso R-Wyoming tried to add the export of liquified natural gas to Ukraine. Menendez replied that Turkey would block any import of LNG into the Black Sea. Others also opposed Barrosso's proposal, calling it out of order and subject to the jurisdiction of the Banking and Energy Committees. So it goes in Washington.

 On March 11, the US House of Representatives went late with speeches denouncing Russia.

 The longest was by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who recounted on the House floor history from 1941, how only because Hitler had to turn back to put down the revolution in Yugoslavia did he not conquer Russia but got stopped the month after.
 
  Rep Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, said that Yanukovych had "a golden toilet." That Internet image has widely been discredited, but who's counting? She promoted an event at "Four Freedoms" park at the tip of Roosevelt Island.

  US President Barack Obama was in Manhattan at $32,000 a plate fundraisers, one including Mayor Bill De Blasio. Then Obama flew back to New York, where he will meet Ukraine's Yatsenyuk on March 12 at 2:45 pm.

   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on the other hand, is slated according to Bill De Blasio's scheduled to meet with De Blasio at 2 pm at City Hall. It is not in the UN's Media Alert, as was repeatedly requested by the Free UN Coalition for Access (whose member Luiz Rampelotto took this photo on March 12 of Ban, his head of protocol and US political guru Bob Orr).

   Earlier on March 11 in the US House of Representatives in DC, Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur recounted the suffering of Ukraine including under the Nazis; California Republican Ed Royce called for adoption of H.R. 499 before Yatsenyuk's arrival.

  But there was a call for yeas and nays to be counted, and debate shifted to a religious exemption for Obamacare. (Obama himself was headed to New York to raise money.)

  The US announced that

Tomicah Tillemann, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, March 11-12, to represent the United States at the 12th meeting of the Governing Council of the Community of Democracies... The meeting will address a broad range of issues related to democracy including the status of freedom of association in the world, challenges facing human rights defenders, and current developments in Ukraine. Governing Council members will recognize Moldova’s graduation from the Community’s Democracy Partnership Task Force.

While in Geneva, Dr. Tillemann will participate in a number of events hosted by the CD’s working groups. These include an introductory meeting of the new Freedom of Expression Working Group and a panel discussion on lessons learned from Ukraine.

   Amid all this, there was some off-camera grumbling not only about impacted countries' unwillingness to impose sanctions, but in particular about France's continued sale of weaponry to Russia. 

  While France rails against Russian actions in Ukraine and the Crimea, it is in the midst of selling two Mistral warships to Russia for $1.4 billion.

  On March 10 when France's Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud came to the Security Council stakeout to say how concerned he is, Inner City Press three times asked about the warship sale. But Araud refused to answer. 

  Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung calls first on Agence France Presse, which did not ask the question about the warships. This is France's or Araud's deal: hard questions result in banishment; when Araud doesn't like a story or a quote, he threatens to sue. There was walk of (a lack of) freedom of the press in Crimea.

  If Araud wouldn't answer, might Delattre?

  Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant if in the Security Council's March 10 private meeting there was any discussion of what the US says are questions John Kerry has sent to Sergey Lavrov. 

  No, Lyall Grant answered. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: Question on Ukraine.  Do you think there will be any opposition to Yatseniuk?  He has said publicly that he’s going to address the Council on the 13th.  How do you think that could play out?  And also the US has said that it has asked a series of questions to Russia and basically it said that it won’t travel there until these questions are answered.  I wondered did this come up in the Council and does it bear any relation, this process of putting questions to Mr Lavrov and the process inside the Council?

Amb Lyall Grant: On the question of putting questions to Mr Lavrov was not raised today.  Nor indeed was a possible visit by Mr Yatseniuk the Prime Minister of Ukraine.  But the Prime Minister is coming to the United States this week.  We understand that he does want to address the Security Council and we would fully support that and we hope that all member states would support it.

Some wonder of the relation between the two processes, and of the relevance. Lyall Grant added that the UK would support Ukraine's Yatsenyuk addressing the Security Council.

 Inner City Press asked Luxembourg's Sylvie Lucas about Yatsenyuk's statement he "will" address the Council on March 13. She replied, We will react when we receive such a request.

  The US has announced that Ukraine's Arseniy Yatsenyuk will meet with President Barack Obama on March 12; he has added he will address the UN Security Council on March 13. 

  But if UNSC Permanent Five member Russia does not recognize Yatsenyuk, can he? On Syria, France and others declared that Ahmad al Jarba is the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. But he was confined to a Friends of Syria meeting down the hall from the Security Council, and before that a faux "UN briefing" with the UN's Gulf & Western media club.

   Yuriy Sergeyev has addressed the Security Council at least four times in the last ten days. But he was Ukraine's Ambassador under Yanukovych: he is automatically recognized. With Yatsenuk, it may be different.

   When the UN Security Council was debating Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the US problematized their representatives getting visas to come address the UN. The US can and will let in Yatsenyuk, into the country - but will Russia, into the UN Security Council?

   On March 7 with little fanfare, Ukraine's Ambassador Sergeyev went into basement Conference Room 3. Outside the sign simply said, "GRULAC: Grulac meeting [Closed]."

  GRULAC is the Latin American and Caribbean Group at the UN. Sergeyev told Inner City Press he is trying to brief each regional group. But why have it closed? 

   Inner City Press staked out the meeting, as upstairs the farewell of Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was partially held in the room the UN gives to the UN Correspondents Association, which has become theUN's Censorship Alliance. Bottoms up!

Free Syrian Army's Child Soldiers Covered Up, Reuters Promotes Hollywood's Monuments Men Movie (While Misusing DMCA to Censor)

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive, Media Critique

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- The UN's report on Syria and children, on which Inner City Press first reported on January 29, says that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers.

   But who cares what it says? Reuters for example did not report on it until February 4, and then didn't cite the US law banning aid to child soldier recruiters.

  On February 5, rather than follow up, Reuters used a UN briefing about Syria and destruction of cultural heritage, largely by rebels, to promote the Hollywood film Monuments Men. (At the same UNESCO briefing, the State Department's Voice of America demanded to know if the Assad government is lying about protecting antiquities.)

  As to US Ambassador Samantha Power? Reuters' focus was not FSA child soldiers, but rather Pussy Riot -- and on this, though not on the FSA child soldiers, the US Mission was fast with an e-mailed quote. This is how it works.

  And so on BBC Rico Hizon linked the Syrian child soldiers report to the delay in removing chemical weapons, with no mention of the FSA's recruitment. On CNN, Jake Tapper's first question to John Kerry was, "The United Nations says that Assad’s regime is torturing children." What aboutParagraph 12, and the US law?

   This is the story, then, of two UN reports and how they were either blared or covered up by sample wire Reuters.

   The more recent report shows the FSA recruiting and using child soldiers, which should for example ban them from US aid under the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008. 

    On January 29 Inner City Press first published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the FSA recruits and uses child soldiers: 

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Reuters didn't report on this until a full six days later -- it claimed that the report was only made public that day, February 4 -- and did not mention the US law on support to child soldier recruiters.

   Inner City Press back on January 30 asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this. 

 (By contrast, the old United Nations Correspondents Association on whose executive committee Reuters has in essence a Permanent seat defended this untransparent treatment of UN reports; last July 26, UNCA sponsored Syria rebel "president" Ahmad al Jarba for a faux "UN briefing," click here for that.)

  In this Syria / FSA child soldiers case, the delay by the UN -- and as noted by Reuters -- affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers, certainly not by Reuters.

   Contrast this with Reuters' breathless blaring of advance copies of the UN's Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions Group of Experts report accusing Rwanda of supporting the M23 rebels. 

  Last summer, Reuters highlighted those portions of the GoE report without publishing it. Inner City Press put thewhole report online.

  Reuters made much of the next DRC Group of Experts report; its bureau chief pursued Rwandan Permanent Representative Eugene-Richard Gasana up to the UN escalator asking about the Group of Experts report, video here.

   Between these two, the Reuters UN bureau chief after trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN made afiling with Google to get his own e-mail complaint to the UNblocked from Google's search, claiming it was copyrighted and (mis) using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Hisfiling is available here, via the Electronic Frontier Foundation's ChillingEffects.org.

  By the logic of this censorship complaint to Google, any leaked document could be blocked for Google's Search under a claim of "copyright." 

   On the Syria report on February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.

"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.

"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 

  Inner City Press had previously noted to them difficulty is getting responses from the State Department in Washington, which says some of its notices are restricted to "mainstream" -- read, legacy -- media, and to "ask the Mission." 

  The US Mission has yet to respond. But today's New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," has a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but as to the US and the recent report it is or is moving toward aiding the armed FSA, what steps will actually be taken on this UN report, which unlike the UN's report accusing Rwanda, Reuters was six days late in reporting, such as it did? Watch this site.